- Ravians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The AFD closure does not appear to reflect the main consensus for a redirect or keep, instead the deletion was based on a hardline interpretation of BLP overriding other considerations. The logical conclusion of this AFD closure would be the deletion of the vast majority of alumni lists. In practice marking for improvement of references, and eventual trimming of unsourced names if needed, is sufficient as names of people appearing in alumni lists is highly unlikely to represent a hazard to the reputation of living people and blatant hoaxes can and are removed on sight without deleting the entire list. Fæ (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was the closing admin on the AFD. Some more detailed rationale behind my close is on my talk page. Put shortly, as the closing admin I felt that the mixed consensus on the AFD was not enough to override some very strong and unequivocal language on WP:BLP, which has a huge community consensus behind it. However, I think Fae (talk · contribs) is making a strong point that Sandstein (talk · contribs)'s interpretation of the BLP policy (which I agreed with) could result in the deletion of a large number of lists, which may justify making exceptions per WP:IAR. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (Keep). There is nothing contentious in the cached version, and I cannot see what Sandstein might be imagining. Even if his imagination were correct, it is certainly not the consensus of the discussion. No one in the discussion agreed with Sandsein. (To the extent that the closer did, it was a supervote.) This is way beyond the rejected "BLP no consensus defaults to delete". It is absurd BLP zealotry. Also, I think I also see secondary sources for Ravians, and Category:Ravians exists and is well populated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Overturn (Keep). As Fæ and SmokeyJoe said, for the reasons that they stated (as well as those at the AfD). Quite a startling read of the AfD discussion, to be frank, by the closer here. Sandstein's comment was shown quite dramatically at the AfD to be baseless, as SmokeyJoe notes above as well -- difficult, as SJ says, to understand why nom would have closed this as he did. In any event, it should be undone post-haste.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recuse as a participant in the AfD, although long experience of DRV makes me think it likely this outcome will be overturned. I want to say that "BLP" means "remove unsourced negative (or, okay, 'contentious') material about living people". It doesn't mean "delete the whole article in despite of consensus." I do not understand why it would be contentious to describe someone as an alumnus of a university, but if there is a pressing reason why it's contentious in some individual case, then the individual can be removed from the article.
There is another point to consider: since we have Category:Ravians, then per WP:CLN a list that's a counterpart to the category can and should exist. I didn't raise this in the AfD because it seemed so certain to me that the result was heading for a "keep" anyway, and I didn't want to complicate the debate.—S Marshall T/C 07:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it SOP to recuse in a DRV when you !voted in the AFD? Some people !voting here also !voted in the AFD. --causa sui (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurred to me that my motives in asking that question might not be clear. I don't mean to imply that those other editors should also recuse, but rather to suggest that maybe you shouldn't. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my personal SOP. I'm quite a prolific DRV participant—possibly the most prolific—and if I allowed myself to !vote on DRVs where I'd also !voted on the AfD, there could potentially be a risk that my personal view would receive overmuch weight on contentious matters. I don't mean to imply that anyone else should do this, particularly those who don't participate at DRV every day.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (redirect). There was no consensus to delete, the rationale for the delete was BLP - but what exactly is contentious about a list of names? Szzuk (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. There's no indication that the underlying claim is contentious. When we're dealing with list articles of this sort, it should be sufficient if the claim is sourced in the individual article, and disputes, if any, should be first addressed at the individual articles. The expressed consensus was more than clear enough, and this isn't "list of public officials with mail-order doctorates," where BLP would clearly require the level of sourcing indicated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW overturn to keep Calling BLP is not a free pass to do what ever one likes. Both the ed., who raised the bLP question, and the closing admin, should re-=read the policy and understand better the interpretation. It applies only to contentious material, not routine uncontested non-derogatory facts. Incidentally, I see no reason why a participant in an AfD like S Marshall should consider it necessary to recuse from the discussion here. Even the nom and the closing admin frequently join these discussions. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. I'm satisfied with the case to keep I made in the procedure itself. Many editors above have put a better perspective on the BLP policy than I could. But while I don't doubt the closer's honest intention to do the right thing, there are several issues which puzzle me about this close. User:Black Kite appropriately relisted the discussion due to unclear consensus at 11:47. User:S Marshall noticed and read the open discussion, posts a rejection of previous User:Sandstein's strong interpretation of BLP. I come along, express my opinion, and another user endorses a redirect. All in seven or eight hours. Finally the discussion is taking shape. And then abruptly it's closed as delete with cursory rationale at 23:24. Now, in the last sentence of the BLP section of deletion closure guidelines, judging the weight of the BLP concern falls on the closing admin. I take it for granted that I occasionally disagree with decisions I don't make, so I asked the closing admin for some expansion. 1) I didn't understand why a recently relisted procedure should have been closed so soon after the relist, especially when consensus was not yet clearly established by the discussion. 2) If the BLP issue is paramount, I didn't understand why the alumni section of the institution in question isn't already wiped clean. The outcome doesn't address this more serious issue, an unsourced list populated with many living non-notables. If this issue remains unaddressed, it makes this close look pointy. 3) I didn't understand why the closing admin closed as delete rather than redirect, making the close a sort of (somebody said this above) a super !vote. If User:causa sui wanted to make an assertion of policy, it should have been made in the discussion, not the close. These three questions deserve some sort of response from the closing administrator. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I must have misread the relisting date. As you say, it was not appropriate to close so soon after the debate was relisted. That fact, in addition to the other points you and everyone else have made, makes a compelling case that my close was unambiguously in error, so I will reverse it now. Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion up to this point, and please accept my apology for my error. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|